This Weblog or "Blog" contains articles, events and opinions that support capital punishment in North Carolina and elsewhere. Author(s) of the contents are exercising their rights to free speech which unfortunately is often stifled or ignored by the media.
Contrary to what you might read or hear in the news, North Carolinians should be proud that an occassional and deserved execution is allowed to proceed.
- Wayne Uber

Sunday, October 27, 2013

THE DEATH PENALTY: SAVING MORE INNOCENT LIVES

The Death Penalty: SAVING MORE INNOCENT LIVESA Review of All Innocence IssuesDudley Sharp updated 11/2016

There are two primary, conflicting views on innocents and the death penalty.

The pro death penalty view, that, in addition to justice, saving innocent lives is a benefit of the death penalty/executions.

The anti death penalty view, that, even if just, the sanction should be ended, if there is only the prospect of an innocent executed.

1)PRO DEATH PENALTY: THE DEATH PENALTY PROTECTS MORE INNOCENT LIVES

The death penalty/executions protect innocents, in three ways, better than does life without parole (LWOP): enhanced due process, enhanced incapacitation and enhanced deterrence:

a) Enhanced due process - No knowledgeable party disputes that the death penalty has the greatest of due process protections (1), what the US Supreme Court has called "super due process", meaning that actual innocents sentenced to LWOP are more likely to die as innocents in prison, than are innocents likely to be executed.

As death penalty opponents, now, argue that LWOP is more cruel than execution, this takes on greater importance , as their position is to support the more cruel sanction, LWOP, over death, and with LWOP having a higher probability of sanctioning innocents with incarceration and death. Interesting and consistent.
Nearly 100% of capital murderers prefer life over death and do all they can to stay alive, within pre trial, trial, appeals and commutation/clemency proceedings, a fact not in dispute (2). Not surprising. Read TheDeath of Punishment by Robert Blecker.

b) Enhanced incapacitation - Living murderers are, infinitely, more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers - a truism, supported by all the known facts, reviewed, below.

c) Enhanced deterrence - All sanctions deter some. The death penalty/execution is the most severe sanction. Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life.What we prefer more, deters less. What we fear more, deters more.The death penalty/executions are an enhanced deterrent over LWOP. The only honest disputes are 1) if the death penalty/executions are a greater deterrent than LWOP - both the evidence and reason says yes (2,3) - and 2) "How much do death penalty/executions deter?" - a question that will never be answered to anyone's satisfaction, as the soft sciences can only offer general and, often, wildly different results, often, criticized, as with the 28 studies, post 1996, finding for US death penalty/execution deterrence of from 1-28 murders deterred by each execution (2,3).Even with the highest 28 number, such represents a net 5% reduction in
murders, a net reduction that could "vanish" within gross annual murders and
murder rates, even though it still represents a very important net reduction of 924
murders per year, attributable to the deterrent effect. (based upon 33
executions/yr and 18,000 murders/yr).

As a rule, the criticism of the studies finding for deterrence are far less credible than are those studies finding for deterrence (2,3).

d) Doubting Deterrence - It is not up to death penalty supporters to prove deterrence. It is up to deterrence naysayers to prove that the death penalty/executions deter none, which death penalty opponents have never and can never establish, as all sanctions, all negative prospects and all negative incentives deter some, all truisms and all well known, with the death penalty being the harshest sanction, the worst negative prospect and the greatest of negative incentives.Historically, factually and rationally, the evidence that all sanctions, all negative outcomes and all negative incentives deter some is overwhelming (2,3) and the evidence that any sanction, any negative outcome or any negative incentive deters none does not exist (2,3).The death penalty/executions prevail over LWOP, if protecting the innocent is your concern:

(1) If the death penalty/executions do not deter, and we fail to execute, both enhanced due process and enhanced incapacitation tell us we will be sacrificing more innocents;

(2) If the death penalty/executions do deter, and we fail to execute, we will be sacrificing even more innocents than in 1, just above;

(3) If the death penalty/executions do not deter and we execute, we have enhanced due process and enhanced incapacitation, thereby sparing more innocent lives;

(4) If the death penalty/executions do deter and we execute, we have all three benefits, sparing even more innocent lives than in 3, just above.

Getting rid of the death penalty/executions will sacrifice more innocents. Keeping or adding the death penalty/executions will spare more innocent lives, over LWOP (2,3).With or without deterrence, the option is to "risk" sparing more innocent lives with the death penalty/executions or to risk sacrificing more innocents by not using the death penalty/executions.

Pro death penalty folks make that argument.

A responsible protocol:

Virginia executes within 7 years of sentencing, on average, and has executed 72% of their death sentenced murderers (111 murderers), since 1976 (4), with not even a false hint of innocents executed (5-8).

All states could match that protocol with 2-3.3 years at each court level, the state supreme court, the federal district court and federal circuit courts, averaging 6-10 years of appeals, prior to execution. Cases heard at SCOTUS are rare.Legally and rationally, 6-10 years of appeals, on average, is a responsible time. All it takes is responsible judges (9) who, as the case managers, control both time and costs, at pre trial, trial and within appeals.

2) ANTI DEATH PENALTY: SPARING MURDERERS, NO MATTER THE COSTA) Sacrificing the Innocent To Spare MurderersThe latest anti death penalty mantra is, "If just one innocent can be spared from execution, we must end the death penalty." Let's review.1) Well known anti death penalty scholars "(Charles) Black and (Hugo Adam ) Bedau said they would favor abolishing the death penalty even if they knew that doing so would increase the homicide rate by 1,000 percent." (10).
They both chose sparing the lives of 1300 guilty murderers (executed from 1973-2013) over saving an additional 6.3 million innocent lives, taken by murder (a 1000% increase in the murder rate 1973-2013).
Anti death penalty. academic leaders make that argument. Astounding, yet no surprise. The goal of anti death penalty folks is making sure that all murderers live, no matter the cost.2) Pro death penalty scholar Ernest van den Haag interviewed well known anti death penalty activists, asking them, if it was proven that 100 innocent lives were spared per execution, via deterrence, would you still oppose the death penalty. All said yes (10).
Based upon our 1300 executions (1973-2013), those anti death penalty folks would chose sparing the lives of 1300 guilty murderers over saving the lives of 130,000 innocents from murder.The anti death penalty goal is to save guilty murderers, no matter the cost, including the cost in innocent lives, as they admit.
Anti death penalty folks make that argument.B) The Blatant "Innocence/Exoneration" FraudsNo known innocents executed in the US, within the modern death penalty era, post Gregg v Georgia (1976). There is much deception regarding innocents executed and little else (5).No one doubts the possibility of an innocent executed. However, the facts reveal that, with the death penalty/executions, retained or enacted, that many more net lives are spared because of our use of the death penalty/execution, with many, many more net innocents will die when we allow murderers to live.1) The Frauds of the "Innocent/Exonerated" Released from Death RowAnti death penalty folks constantly lie about the "innocents' or "exonerated" who were released from death row, with their newest false number now at 156 (6-8), reflecting a degree of deception, where is found up to an 83% "error" rate in such "innocence/exonerated" claims from Texas and Florida (8), really a blatant lie rate.The worldwide media pushes these frauds on a daily basis. It is one of the worst journalism disasters, from either the no fact checking or fraud enabling perspective.Based upon various reviews (6-8), we have discovered and released 25-46 actual innocents from death row, or 0.4% of those so sentenced, since 1976. Is there a more accurate sanction than one which has a known record of 99.6% accuracy in convicting the actually guilty and releasing the o.4% actually innocent upon appeal? Probably not.
Somehow, the anti death penalty folks have gotten truly, actual innocents released from death row, to lobby against the death penalty, using these same lies. Despicable. Are they paying them that much? See "Witness to Innocence" organization, started by Sister Helen Prejean (11).
If they respected innocence they wouldn't lie about it and they lie, a lot.The DPIC's lies regarding this list are numerous and ongoing, as the most basic fact checking confirms.2) The 4.1% "innocents" on death row nonsense (12).

This is a stark example of how bad anti death penalty academic studies can be.

The study's foundation for the 4.1% "false conviction" rate is based upon the well known, misleading database from the anti death penalty organization, Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) (6-8), reviewed, just above in 2B1.3) The Fraud of False "False Confessions"

"Peter Neufeld, a co-founder of The Innocence Project, . . . did not deny
Dr. Welner’s charge that The Innocence Project has falsely inflated its numbers
of false confessions. Neufeld additionally revealed, in his response to Dr.
Welner, that The Innocence Project also classifies cases as false confessions
even when their own exonerated clients are adamant that they never confessed –
because, as Neufeld asserted, “some of our clients are not reliable with what
they tell us.” (13)

"Dr. Welner demonstrated how poor scientific methodology and an anti-police
agenda among declared scholars in this novel area of scientific interest result
in inflated perceptions of the prevalence of false confessions." (13)

These include false representations by The Innocence Project that the
proportion of false confessions in wrongful conviction cases is 25 percent when
that percentage is in actuality close to 10 percent.

"Dr. Welner challenged assertions of published academics such as Gisli
Gudjonsson, Saul Kassin, Richard Ofshe, Richard Leo, and Steven Drizin that
confirmed false confessions are “frequent,” a “small but significant minority”
of confessions, and “the tip of the iceberg.”

Welner: "Objectivity does not allow forensic science the liberty of
changing a threshold of ‘reliable’ to suit the argument of the moment.” (13)

3) SPECULATION ON MORE INNOCENTS AT RISK

We can speculate as to 1) how many more innocents may have been sent to death row, just as we may speculate as to 2) how many more innocents are at risk if we stop the death penalty/executions and allow more murderers to live, the later being a hugely more significant number than the former, based upon the known facts.

4)SOME ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PERSPECTIVE AND PROPORTION IS REQUIRED
As anti death penalty folks insist on getting rid of the death penalty, based upon the possibility of an innocent executed, what of these?33/yr, on average, are executed, in the US. Then, we have these:a) 5000 die/yr in US criminal custody (14).
Following the anti death penalty mantra: "We must not incarcerate any more people, just to make sure that not one more innocent will die while incarcerated, How many of those 5000 are innocent - it is inevitable - we must ban all forms of custody, so that one innocent, or thousands, might be spared".
But, of course, the anti death penalty folks don't make that argument, even though it represents their mantra.b) up to from 16,000 - 31,000 additional innocents were murdered by those known murderers that we allowed to murder, again, -- recidivist murderers -- since 1973 (15) - but no innocents executed. This based upon three different recidivism studies, for three different periods (15).16,000 - 31,000 - let that sink in.Following the anti death penalty mantra: "from 16,000 - 31,000 innocents were murdered because we allowed known murderers to murder, again - we must execute all murderers, so as not to allow murderers to murder one more innocent, again, much less allowing known murderers to murder an additional 14,000 - 31,000 innocents."Of course, anti death penalty folks don't make that argument, even though it represents their mantra.c) Every year, approximately 9000 known criminals, with criminal convictions and who were either released or never incarcerated, are allowed to murder (16).Every year.d) up to 400,000 innocents have been murdered by those known criminals we have released on parole and probation, while under government supervision, and/or, were otherwise released or were criminals never incarcerated, since 1973 (17).400,000
Following the anti death penalty mantra: "400,000 innocents died because we allowed known criminals to murder - we must not release any criminals, to spare one more innocent and those 400,000 innocents."
But, of course, the anti death penalty folks don't make that argument, even though it represents their mantra.d) Studies by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that 94 percent of state prisoners in 1991 had committed a violent crime or been incarcerated or on probation before. Of these prisoners, 45 percent had committed their latest crimes while free on probation or parole. When "supervised" on the streets, they inflicted at least 218,000 violent crimes, including 13,200 murders and 11,600 rapes (more than half of the rapes against children) (18).
This is just for a review of prisoners for one year, only -- 1991.
Following the anti death penalty mantra: "We must stop paroles and probations, to spare one more innocent murdered, much less the 13,200 innocents murdered and 11,600 innocents raped (more than half against children)" found from a review of prisoners incarcerated in that one year.
But, of course, the anti death penalty folks don't make that argument, even though it represents their mantra.e) Patrick A. Langan, senior statistician at the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics, calculated that tripling the prison population from 1975 to 1989 may have reduced "violent crime by 10 to 15 percent below what it would have been," thereby preventing a "conservatively estimated 390,000 murders, rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults in 1989 alone." (18).
In that one year alone!
Following the anti death penalty mantra: "We must incarcerate more and release no prisoners, just to protect one innocent and the future millions of innocents from harm by known criminals."
But of course, the anti death penalty folks don't make that argument, even though it represents their mantra.

5) REALITY: THE ACTUAL ANTI DEATH PENALTY ARGUMENT
"We must spare the lives of all murderers, no matter the cost, inclusive of the cost of more innocent lives taken, no matter the number".
Additionally disturbing, is that death penalty opponents, now, state that LWOP is harsher than execution.Death penalty opponents claim a desire to treat murderers more harshly, with LWOP, calling for a ban on the death penalty, which they declare a cruel and unusual punishment and a human rights violation (19) , desiring LWOP more, which, according to death penalty opponents, must be a more cruel human rights violation.
This from the "compassionate" side? They don't really believe it - it's just another lie, another tactic - "Get rid of the death penalty, be tougher with LWOP".
Capital murderers prefer LWOP 99.7% of the time over the death penalty (2). Death penalty opponents can't help but give murderers exactly what they want, at the expense of more innocent lives taken.
======
1) a) Texas Death Penalty
Procedures

6) The Blatant Fraud - The (now) 156 "exonerated" from death rowThe Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) simply decided to redefine both "exonerated" and "innocent", in the same fashion as if they redefined "lie" as "truth".

An Open Fraud in the Death Penalty Debate: How Death Penalty Opponents Lie

This is a look at how well destroyed the "EXONERATED" and/or "INNOCENTS" list is and how it has been so deceptively used by the anti death penalty movement.8) Florida and Texas: The 83% error rate in "exoneration" claims.Florida:

4 of the alleged 24 (now 25) "exonerated" may be innocent, as found in 2 studies, 2002 and 2001, by a Florida state agency, the Florida Commission on Capital Cases. It is no surprise that the 24/25 "exonerated" claims comes from the deceptive DPIC.

From page 5 (2002 study) and page 7 (2011 study):

"The guilt of only four defendants was subsequently "doubted" by the prosecuting office or the Governor and Cabinet members: Freddie Lee Pitts and Wilbert Lee were pardoned by Governor Askew and the Cabinet, citing substantial doubt of their guilt, Frank Lee Smith died before the results of DNA testing excluded him as the perpetrator of the sexual assault, and the State chose not to retry James Richardson due to newly discovered evidence and the suspicion of another perpetrator."

TexasThe deceptive DPIC, again, claims 12 death row "exonerations" in Texas.By Texas law, Texas has only identified one former death row inmate , Anthony Graves, as actually innocent:1 not 12Both states with 83% error rates in the fraudulent "exoneration" claims.See both within:The Innocents Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy,http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-innocent-frauds-standa-anti-death.html

6.6% recidivism rate, 1989 study of
1983 data1.2% recidivism rate, 2002 study of 1994 datasee 2010 data study below and at the linkWithin 5 years of release (2010 data), 71.3% of violent offenders were arrested for a new crime.This is a significant increase over the within 3 years of their release, from the 1983 and 1994 studies, wherein 59.7% and 61.7% of the violent offenders were re-arrested for a new offenses.Very odd, the newest study failed to look at murder recidivism, as they did in the previous studies.Based upon the most recent, third study, which does not reveal recidivism murderers, but does find increases (+10%) in deterrence rates for violent offenders, after 5 years removed from prison, as opposed to the two earlier studies, which only looked at recidivism after 3 years removed from prison, which may indicate that 16,000 - 31,000 innocent murder victims murdered by recidivist murderers, when raising both known murder recidivism rates by 10%.Why the recidivism rates
should be higher:
Both of the studies which include murderer recidivism rates only looked at recidivism for 3
years after release. We are concerned with recidivism for 41 years and less,
years 1973-2015, as the modern era of new death penalty statutes began in 1973.
Recidivism rates will be higher if released prisoners were tracked for the
additional 4 years to 41 years, as the 5 year study shows and reason dictates, as opposed to only 3 years.
Why the recidivism rates should be
lower:
The dramatic reduction in recidivism between the two studies
reflects a dramatic increase in sentencing terms and incarceration rates, which
amounted to lower rates of early release and thus recidivism, with other contributing factors as well.However, this might be countered by the increased recidivism rates from the 5 year period in the 2005-2010 data, which will only get higher, looking at recidivism for 6-42 years.======
EXACT
NUMBERS: Based upon convictions, 8.4% of those on death row had murdered, at
least one person, prior to committing additional murder or murders which put
them on death row --an estimated 600-1000 additional innocents murdered, by
those who had murdered before, just for that small set that have made it to
death row.
Table 8. Criminal history profile of prisoners under sentence
of death by race and Hispanic origin, 2005", p 6, Capital Punishment, 2005,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cp05.pdf
2005
was the last year of this analysis

16) I am estimating 18,000 murders per year (1973-2014), therefore approx. 9000 murderers/ year with prior convictionsa) 53% of murderers had a prior conviction record.b) Median prison sentences received included a maximum of 240 months for murder, 120 months for rape, 60 months for robbery, and 48 months for other violent felonies. 20 YEAR MEDIAN SENTENCE FOR MURDER -- 20 years.

17) "Sixty-seven percent of murderers . . . had (a prior) arrest record . .
." " . . . with 56% of violent felons (having) a prior conviction record.",
for 12 years of data.From 1973-2014, using only a 50% prior record, this would mean that known
violent criminals, who were released by parole, probation, release pending
disposition and other releases and those not incarcerated, have murdered
approximately 369,000 persons, after they were released, but excluding those
additional persons murdered by alleged "non violent" offenders with those same
dispositions.Calculation; An average of 18,000 murders per year (1973-2014) times 41
years times 50%. I suspect the count of "non violent: offenders would raise that
number to at least 400,000, based upon there being far more "non violent"
offenders being released.1) See Highlights, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs,
Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, State Court Processing Statistics,
1990-2002